LETTERS TO THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Other Voices: When a 'Person of Interest' Is Innocent

Published: August 24, 2008

''Headlines and Exonerations'' (Aug. 17) is a pretty pusillanimous approach to the issue of uncritically publishing ''leaks'' from official or quasi-official sources.

The real problem is not what happens to one person, like Steven J. Hatfill, accused of a crime, though that's bad enough. It's when the news media become propaganda outlets for the government or political parties.

The press does not deserve to be free unless it maintains an adversarial relationship to authority. The New York Times and other newspapers and media will be adversarial when it gives them a scoop, but they will also publish propaganda when that gives them a scoop.

ERIC DOWTY

Kingsport, Tenn., Aug. 18, 2008

I remember the Sam Sheppard case in Cleveland in the 1950s. I was delivering The Cleveland Press, a Scripps-Howard newspaper, the year that Mr. Sheppard's wife, Marilyn, was murdered.

Every day for six months The Press chided the police for not arresting Mr. Sheppard. He eventually was found guilty of her murder and sent to jail. More than 10 years later, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction on grounds that his case had been tainted by pretrial publicity.

HARRY STERN

Goldens Bridge, N.Y., Aug. 17, 2008

I had wondered what The Times's position would be when the Justice Department exonerated Steven J. Hatfill, given the hounding that he had received following the anthrax mailings.

Now that the F.B.I. has built a case against Bruce E. Ivins, a military researcher, it is clear that the harm done to Dr. Hatfill was incalculable.

I see a connection to the hoax surrounding the Duke lacrosse players that played itself out in the news media for much of 2006 and 2007. The media frenzy (in which The Times participated) played an important role in what happened, and three young men were indicted for a crime that never occurred.

In that case, reporters barely questioned the statements and reports of the district attorney, the Durham Police Department and Duke University's president. There was hardly a critical word.

Doesn't The Times owe the three young men an apology for its coverage?

CATHERINE SCHILDKNECHT

Cincinnati, Aug. 17, 2008

Political Affairs

Re ''Sometimes, There's News in the Gutter'' (Aug. 10):

You discuss the decision The Times made to ignore the news of John Edwards's affair.

I grew up reading newspapers and continue to read newspapers, but I am no longer dependent on my local paper and The Times to keep me informed. Weeks ago, when I heard rumors, I went online and got the information I wanted.

If Brad Pitt or any other celebrity has an affair, it's interesting to me only because -- well, it's just interesting. The fact that John Edwards had an affair while trying to win my vote makes it not only interesting, but important information about his character.

The Times can decide what it wants to print, but can no longer control my ability to get the information that I want.

CELIA BALLEW JONES

Richmond, Va., Aug. 11, 2008

I think by ignoring the Edwards story for so long, The Times has done the country a major disservice.

Why was the story a significant news item, seamy as it was? It is a matter of trust, morality and loyalty to one's values and spouse.

Far too common these days is the attitude that what one does in his ''private'' life should be ignored. Would we ignore it if a candidate cheated a business partner, embezzled money, stole from a department store? Of course not, because that would show a lapse of honesty.

In a like manner, cheating on one's spouse or partner without breaking up is the same as other deceptions. If a partner, especially a lifelong partner, cannot trust the other, then isn't it just possible that the cheater would betray the public's trust as well?

The public desperately needs to gauge the dependability and honesty of a candidate.

HAROLD TUCHEL

Waterloo, Iowa, Aug. 10, 2008

Images of Dead Soldiers

Re ''The Painful Images of War'' (Aug. 3):

The Times's desire to publish photographs of American military deaths puts the paper squarely in the enemies' camp. I know, or at least I think I know, that's not The Times's intention. Its intention is an antiwar strategy to demoralize the American people into not wanting to fight wars. So when you wonder why so many Americans think The Times is the enemy, you will understand why that's the case.

We do not want to see our brave and honorable men and women used for a political stunt, the way America's enemies use images for political stunts.

ANDY BRYANT

Virginia Beach, Va., Aug. 4 , 2008

It is agonizing to reflect on the differing perspectives on the publication of images of wounded or dead soldiers. While it is unlikely these views can be reconciled, I hope all news media will continue to portray the horrors of combat without crossing the line to the grotesque. Those of us who do not have a direct physical stake in these battles need to be reminded of the true meaning of ''wounded'' and ''killed.''

Inevitably there will be charges of political bias, but I think there is a reasonably bright line between articles and photographs that speak to the wisdom of the strategy of the war and those that speak to the human cost of pursuing that strategy.

Please keep the discussion in the forefront so we do not become complacent about the contributions and sacrifices made by the young men and women who are protecting us.

MARVIN I. DROZ

Akron, Ohio, Aug. 5, 2008

I thought your column tried to present all sides of what is truly a difficult issue, one with no clear-cut answer.

I am a public affairs officer with Multi-National Force-Iraq in Baghdad. We are currently struggling with these very issues. From what I can tell, there is no apparent consensus here, but there is much debate. I see both sides of the story. I think that sometimes people view the military as some sort of monolithic entity that seeks to trample on the rights of the news media to cover sensitive issues. That is not the case.

I think that a lot of the friction between the military and the media stems from a simple misunderstanding of each other's work, and the requirements, pressures, goals, etc., of each profession.

I do think, however, that there is a lot of common ground and that the military and the media can work together proactively to find that common ground.

(Capt.) CHARLES G. CALIO

Baghdad, Aug. 6, 2008

American service men and women fight and die as a consequence of policy decisions. Their personal motives for serving are usually mundane, like those of anybody else who chooses a job or career. Whatever their reason, thank God they do it.

When the end comes in combat, all anyone asks for is dignity. The money, the medals and the benefits add up to nothing compared with the life.

That is why it is so offensive to see the photographs of the dead troops in The Times.

The Times has the freedom to publish whatever it wants. It needs to use the discretion that dignity demands. The dead earned it.